[ http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MWEBSTART-13?page=all ]

Jerome Lacoste updated MWEBSTART-13:
------------------------------------

    Attachment: MWEBSTART-13.diff

I would like to fix this and would appreciate your input.

Here's a very rough/untested patch that tries to address the issue.

I modelled the change after the current design of the assembly plugin.

The assembly plugin seems to need to have 3 mojos defined to cover various 
cases. E.g. for the directory goal: directory, directory-inline, 
directory-single. The third one differs from the first by removing the 
specified @phase and using the project instead of executedProject instead.
The second one differs from the third by removing the @aggregator tag.

http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/

So if I want to support something similar in jnlp, we can try the following 
attached patch.

2 words of caution:

- not sure if I need to move the workDirectory definition out of the abstract 
class (because the default value comes from project.build.... and I am not sure 
this one is defined in the jnlp:jnlp mojo (that now uses executedProject 
instead of project)
- I've added @aggregator to the default jnlp mojo. I am not sure if that one 
will have an impact or not on your builds. Is so you may need to use the 
jnlp-inline instead

Anyone wants to give this patch a try ?

> support running the webstart:jnlp plugin alongside a normal pom, without 
> having to use multiprojects
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: MWEBSTART-13
>                 URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MWEBSTART-13
>             Project: Maven 2.x Webstart Plugin
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>            Reporter: Jerome Lacoste
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: MWEBSTART-13.diff
>
>
> Today, you cannot do something like
> mvn install webstart:jnlp
> hoping that your freshly installed artifact gets packaged into your jnlp 
> artifact. The reason, I didn't think it was necessary because of the one 
> artifact one module rule. If you feel otherwise, please vote on this issue.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: 
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

Reply via email to